Taxability of standing rubber trees: old plantation trees excluded from agricultural produce exemption and treated as sale of goods.

Old and unyielding rubber trees sold from a plantation were not treated as agricultural produce for turnover exemption under the Kerala General Sales Tax Act, because the plantation's agricultural produce was latex and the statutory explanation excluded rubber and timber. A contract for cutting and removing standing rubber trees was nevertheless treated as a sale of goods, as attached items agreed to be severed can fall within the sale concept for sales tax purposes. The trees were also regarded as timber within the statutory exclusion. On that basis, the sale of the standing trees was taxable and exemption was unavailable.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether old and unyielding rubber trees sold by the assessee were agricultural produce entitled to exemption from turnover under the Kerala General Sales Tax Act, 1963. (ii) Whether consideration received under an agreement for cutting and removal of standing rubber trees amounted to sale of goods. (iii) Whether old and unyielding rubber trees answered the description of timber for the purposes of the Act.

Issue (i): Whether old and unyielding rubber trees sold by the assessee were agricultural produce entitled to exemption from turnover under the Kerala General Sales Tax Act, 1963.

Analysis: The exemption in the turnover definition is available only to proceeds of sale of agricultural or horticultural produce grown by the seller, and the Explanation expressly excludes rubber and timber from that category. The Court held that the real agricultural produce from a rubber plantation is latex, not the tree itself, and that old unyielding trees sold for felling do not constitute agricultural produce. The Court also relied on the nature of the receipt from sale of such trees as being outside agricultural income treatment.

Conclusion: The claim that old and unyielding rubber trees are agricultural produce was rejected, against the assessee.

Issue (ii): Whether consideration received under an agreement for cutting and removal of standing rubber trees amounted to sale of goods.

Analysis: The definition of goods includes things attached to the land that are agreed to be severed before sale or under the contract of sale, and the statutory scheme also treats specified transfers of rubber and trees as sales. On that basis, the Court held that a contract for cutting and removal of standing trees results in a transfer falling within the concept of sale of goods for sales tax purposes.

Conclusion: The receipt under the cutting and removal agreement constituted sale of goods, against the assessee.

Issue (iii): Whether old and unyielding rubber trees answered the description of timber for the purposes of the Act.

Analysis: The Court observed that timber in the exclusion clause was not confined to hard wood suitable only for furniture or construction, but covered trees planted and later sold when old and unyielding. Rubber trees sold after they cease yielding therefore fall within the statutory exclusion as timber, even if the wood is soft and may require treatment for certain uses. The Court also held that this issue did not assist the assessee because the decisive question remained whether the trees were agricultural produce.

Conclusion: Old and unyielding rubber trees were treated as timber within the statutory exclusion, against the assessee.

Final Conclusion: The revision cases failed because the assessee could not establish exemption on the footing that the trees were agricultural produce, and the sale of the standing trees was exigible to tax.

Ratio Decidendi: Where a plantation tree sold after becoming unyielding is not the agricultural produce itself, and the statute expressly excludes rubber and timber from the agricultural-or-horticultural-produce exemption, the sale of the standing tree is taxable as sale of goods.

---